Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Cornrnunity Development Director~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav. March 14. 2006
The City Council met on February 27. March 7 and 8. 2006. and discussed the
following items of interest to the Planninl!: Commission: (see attached reports)
1. Consider Application Taylor Woodrow Homes. Results Way: (This item was
continued from the February 27 meeting to the March 8, 2006.): The City Council
voted to deny the application on a 2:2 vote. Mayor Lowenthal recused himself
from the discussion.
2. Consider adopting a resolution updatinl!: the Nexus Study and new rnitigation
fees for the Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR) Housinl!: program and direct
staff to draft an inclusionarv housinl!: ordinance: The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06-045.
3. Vallco condominiums and noise status report: The City Council continued the
second reading of the ordinances approving the condominium application to
March 21 and requested the following information:
o Signed copies of at least two of the three Real Estate Agreements
(REA's) with the rnall anchor stores (Macy's, Sears, and J.e. Penny's).
o The CC&R language and easement language related to the wall
between the mall and the neighborhood
o A design for a parking garage that is a maximum of 32 feet high
(excluding the elevator tower), and meets the required number of
parking spaces
o Staff shall provide written notice to the neighborhood in a half-mile
radius, and at least as far as Portal Avenue
City Council accepted the report and asked Valko representatives to
record the hotline telephone calls in the future to monitor the customer
service compliance.
4. Adopt a resolution reauesting that San Jose refer the proposed development
on Kentwood at De Anza (located in the City of San Jose) to the City of
Cupertino for review and cornment: The City Council adopted Resolution No.
06-046.
Report of the Comrnunity Developrnent Director
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Page 2
S. The City Council continued the studv session ree;arding industrial business in
Cupertino.
6. Amend Chapters 16.28 (Fences) of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Application
No. MCA-2005-01, Citv of Cupertino, Citywide: The City Council conducted
first reading with changes to the ordinance regarding fees and electronic gates.
7. Request from the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) to arnend the
eligibility requirements for the Below Market Rate (BMR) prograrn to give
CUSD teachers a point for working within the Citv of Cupertino lirnits,
ree;ardless of the citv they are workintt in, as lone; as they are ernploved by
CUSD: this item was sent back to the Housing Commission and will come back
to Council on April 4, 2006.
8. Conduct the first of two public hearine;s to consider the Citv of Cupertino
Comrnunitv Development Block Grant (CDBG) Proe;ram draft Consolidated
Plan. The City Council continued this item to March 21 for the second public
hearing.
9. Approve the Plannine; Commission 2006 Work Proe;ram: The City Council
approved the Work Prograrn with the following modifications:
D Amend the tree ordinance to protect trees during construction.
D Merge the Planning Commission's study of obsolete research and
development properties into the city council's industrial building initiative.
10. Consider an appeal of the Planning Cornmission's decision to denv a Use
Permit to erect a 35-foot tall slirn-line monopole, William Stephens (T-Mobile),
Tin Tin Market: The City Council remanded this item back to the Planning
Commission at the request of the applicant
11. Consider an appeal of TR-2006-01, a Cornmunitv Development Director's
Decision to deny the rernoval of two Canary Island pine trees located at the
Cupertino Comrnons. The appellants are Nancy Hurtienne and Milton &
Dorothy Levitan. The City Council upheld the denial with the following
specifications:
D When the trees are removed they will be replaced with 48-inch box trees, the
species to be decided on between the commons arborist and city staff.
D The new trees will become part of the approved landscaping plan.
Report of the Community Development Director
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Page 3
Miscellaneous:
1. New Staff in the Community Development Department:
· Bob Gregory has been hired to fill one of the two building inspector
vacancies. Bob comes to Cupertino with hands on experience from owning
his own construction company. The Building Division is completing the
recruitment for the second building inspector position.
· Noren Caliva comes to Cupertino frorn the City of Santa Clara Planning
Division as a Planning Intern.
· After five years with the City of Cupertino, Connie Wang, Senior Office
Assistant has retired. Amy Whiteman has been selected to fill the position
and should start on March 27.
· Alan Dorsett has also decided to retire after many years as a Building
Inspector. We wish him the best of luck and the best is yet to come.
· Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, is returning to the Planning Department on
March 15 after welcoming Ruchir Ghosh into the family. Ruchir is a healthy
baby boy and loves to be held by everyone in the department.
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
Newspaper Articles
G: \Planning\ SteveP\Director's Report \2006 \pd03-14-06. doc
if
CITY OF
CUPEI\11NO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Summary
Agenda Item No._
Agenda Date: March 8, 2006
Application: U-200S-01, ASA-200S-02, TM-200S-01,
Z-200S-01 and EA-200S-01
Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes)
Grosvenor California
Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Ave.
Applicant:
Owner:
Location:
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission, on a 3-1 vote, recommends denial of the following:
1. The MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (file number EA-200S-01).
2. The REZONING application (file number Z-200S-01) in accordance with the model
resolution.
3. The USE PERMIT application (file number U-200S-01) in accordance with the model
resolution.
4. The ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL application (file number ASA-200S-
02) in accordance with the model resolution.
S. The TENTATIVE MAP application (file number TM-200S-01) in accordance with the
model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (Gross):
Density:
Height:
Stories:
Parking:
Required
Proposed:
Light Industrial/Residential
P(ML) Planned Light Industrial
11.94 gross acres
7.87 du/ gr. ac.
28' 11 (measured from grade to ridge of roof)
2-story residential
Units/sq ft. Ratio
94 units 2.8
188 covered spac"es (garage)
75 on-site spaces
263 Total Spaces (2.8/unit)
R.equired
263 spaces
1)-1
V-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01,
Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01
March 8, 2006
Open Space: Private:
Common:
900 sq.ft./ du in fenced side and front yards
2.86 acres (including parks and trails)
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Rezoning required
Application Summary:
$ Use permit to demolish 175,000 square feet of industrial buildings and construct
94 single-family residential units and recreation areas.
$ Architectural and Site Approval for 94 single family residential units and
recreation/ open space.
$ Tentative Map to subdivide a 12-acre parcel into 94 lots, plus one lot held in
common.
. Rezoning of 12 acre site from P(ML) (planned light industrial) zoning district to
P(Res) (Planned Residential).
BACKGROUND:
On January 24, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed Taylor Woodrow's
applications to allow the demolition of five industrial buildings totaling approximately
175,000 square feet, and construction of 94 single family homes with approximately two
acres in public parks. Although a majority of the commissioners expressed that it was
a well-designed project, three commissioners, Chair Miller, Giefer, and Wong, believe
that this site should be retained for industrial uses. Commissioner Saadati was the
dissenting vote, stating that the buildings had been vacant for a long period of time and
he believes the change of use would benefit the City.
At the Planning Commission meeting, representatives from the Fremont Union High
School District (FUHSD), Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and many neighbors
were present to comment on the project, both in opposition and in support. All the
. comments were captured in the attached minutes from the meeting, but below are a few
of the concerns and comments:
. Both school districts commented that the voluntary traffic improvements and
mitigation fees being offered by the developer would benefit the schools.
FUHSD rescinded its earlier opposition to the proposed development.
$ The CUSD representative stated that they have the capacity to serve the students
generated by the project at their schools.
$ Many neighbors commented that they felt the school impacts caused by the
project would be too great.
Þ-~
U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01,
Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01
March 8, 2006
a Several Cupertino residents commented that the pedestrian trail through the
project would assist in relieving traffic impacts since school children could walk
to school.
.. Several neighbors commented on the negative impacts the trail would pose to
their properties on Imperial Avenue.
.. A majority of the comments from neighboring residents were regarding the
traffic impacts during school hours on McClellan Road. They believe the homes
will make the situation worse.
. Several neighbors commented on the proposed parks and the positive impact it
would bring the Monta Vista neighborhood.
Attached is the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission report addressing the
background issues, including traffic, school impacts and open space. Staff had
recommended approval of the project. Subsequently, both staff and the applicant have
agreed the Model Resolutions need to be refined to adequately address traffic
improvements and park maintenance. The revised Model Resolutions are incorporated
into the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission report.
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
David W.
City Mana
,
&
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6364 (File No. U-200S-01)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6365 (File No. ASA-200S-02)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6366 (File No. TM-200S-01)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6367 (File No. Z-200S-0l)
Model Zoning Ordinance with attachments
Planning Commission staff report dated 1/24/06, including the Initial Study, Negative
Declaration, ERC recommendation and all attachments
Minutes from the 1/24/06 Planning Commission meeting
Letter dated February 10, 2006 from the Fremont Union School District discussing uses
for the proposed mitigation fees.
t)-:>
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPERJINO
Community Developmerit Department
Housing Services
Summary
Agenda Item No.
Agenda Date: February 27, 2006
Subject:
Consider adopting a resolution updating the Nexus Study and new mitigation fees for the
Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing program and direct staff to draft an
incIusionary housing ordinance, Resolution No. 06- ()'i:>
Recornmendation:
The Cupertino Housing Commission recommends Council adopt new updated Nexus Study
and adopt new mitigation fees in April, when adopting the user fees, for the Cupertino BMR
program and direct staff to draft an Affordable Housing Ordinance per attached Resolution
06- ot/ {.
Background:
Below Market Rate Program:
Since June 1992, the city of Cupertino has operated a Below Market Rate program. During the
1993 General Plan update, the city approved an inclusionary housing program requiring 10%
of all new developments to be affordable. This percentage was increased to 15% in October
2001 when the City Council approved the new Housing Element of the General Plan.
Approximately 192 of the city's 323 affordable units have been created through the BMR
program.
The residential component of the BMR program has two parts, rental and ownership.
Currently, the program requires 50% of the required rental units to be affordable to very-low
income, 50% of median income, and the other 50% affordable to low income, 80% of median
income, households. In the case of ownership units, 50% must be affordable to median income
households with the other 50% being affordable to moderate-income, 120% of median,
households.
Linkage Fee Component:
A linkage fee was created in 1992 to offset the housing needs created by the development of
office and industrial development. Revenue generated through this program is used to
support the development of affordable housing for families and individuals working In
D-1
COll$ider adopting updated Nexus Study and new ITÚtigation fees for the Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR)
Housing program and direct staff to draft an inclusionary housing ordinance.
January 17, 2006
Page 2
Cupertino. For example, these funds have been used to assist in the development of the
Cupertino Community Services (CCS) Vista Village project, the purchase of surplus CalTrans
property on Cleo Avenue and the purchase of a four-plex by CCS on Greenwood Court. In
addition, a small percentage of the fund is used for administration of the Below Market Rate
program by CCS. Currently, the fee is set at $2.25 a square foot and is assessed against office
and industrial development only. When establishing this component of the housing program
in 1991, the City Council opted to exclude hotels and retail development from the fee.
Discussion:
Nexus Study:
A nexus study was prepared in 1992 to demonstrate the linkage between the non-residential
development and the demand for affordable housing and to provide a legal basis for the fee.
Since this study was prepared more than ten years ago, the City made it a goal in the new
General Plan Housing Element to update the nexus analyses. Keyser. Marston Associates
(KMA) was retained to complete this task. The updated nexus analysis addresses office, retail
and hotel development.
The purpose of a nexus analysis is to document the linkages among the construction of
workplace buildings (such as office buildings, retail stores and hotels), the employees that
work in them, employees households, and the housing demands of these households.
Because the employees in the office building, hotels and commercial developments represent
many different income levels by virtue of compensation level and household size, their
housing demands will cover a range of affordability levels. The nexus analysis quantifies the
households in various housing affordability categories and the cost of creating housing for
these households.
The entire nexus analysis is attached for review and is organized by Keyser Marston into five
sections as follows:
· Section I: Summary of the nexus concept and key issues surrounding nexus analyses
for jobs and housing.
· Section II: An overview of the historical and projected growth of jobs and houSÏ11g in
the City.
· Section III: An analysis of jobs and housing relationships associated with prototypical
buildings.
o Section IV: A summary of the cost of developing housing units affordable to
households at the various income levels and a calculation of the total houSÏ11g nexus
cost, or maximum fee level.
ì>-S
Consider adopting updated Nexus Study and new mitigation fees for the Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR)
Housing program and direct staff to draft an inclusionary housing ordinance.
January 17, 2006
Page 3
. Sectiolï V: Background and information to assist in evaluating appropriate fee levels for
Cupertino.
. Appendices: Provide additional support information and more documentation on data
sources and analysis assumptions.
Industry Input:
Staff and Keyser Marston met with Christine Giusiana, Executive Director of the Cupertino
Chamber of Commerce, and explained in depth the nexus analysis. The Chamber, Vallco
management, the Home Builders Association of Northern California and Sobrato
Development were distributed a copy of the draft study and informed of the Cupertino
Housing Commission meeting schedule for discussion of this item.
Housing Commission Discussion and Recommendation:
One member of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Mark McKemïa with Stevens Creek
Quarry, appeared at the April 14, 2005 Housing Commission meeting to voice displeasure
with the program in general and felt that it would discourage development of housing, office
and retail development. Staff explained that the program had been in place for more than ten
years with minimal effect on office and housing development. Additionally, staff explained
that the purpose of the study was to reevaluate the office/ industrial fee, the residential in-lieu
fee and consider whether commercial (retail) and hotel development should be assessed a fee.
Mr. McKenna stated that he had a strong opposition to raising any fees or creating fees.
The Housing Commission reviewed the Nexus Study over the course of one year and made
their final recommendations to the City Council at their April 14, 2005 Housing Commission
meeting. The Housing Commission recommends the following:
· Retail and hotel should be assessed a fee at the same rate as the office/industrial
development.
· The new fee for retail, office/industrial and hotel shall be $4.75 per square foot.
Compared to other fee programs in California, Cupertino's current fee is at the lower
end of the spectrum and the proposed adjustment would place it nearer the mid portion
of the spectrum (please see Table V-4 of the attached Nexus Study).
· Redevelopment Project Areas shall be exempt from the fees for retail, office/industrial
and hotel. However, they would still be obligated to produce affordable units under
the City's inclusionary housing (BMR) program.
· To encourage mixed use development along the major corridors, projects containing
2/3 residential and 1/3 retail/ office, would be exempt from paying the impact fees for
þ-(o
Consider adopting updated Nexus Study and new mitigation fees for the Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR)
Housing program and direct staff to draft an inclusionary housing ordinance.
January 17, 2006
Page 4
the commercial. The project would still be required to produce affordable housing units
as part of the BMR program.
Affordable Housing Ordinance:
Keyser Marston and Associates and staff also recommend that the City Council direct staff to
draft and Affordable Housing Program Ordinance detailing the Housing Impact Fee program.
By placing the information in the form of an ordinance, the information will be more accessible
to the general public and more detailed than what is currently in the General Plan Housing
Element.
PREPARED BY:
Vera Gil, Senior Planner
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
D,vid £t, City Manege'
Steve Piasecki, Director
of Community Development
Attachments:
Resolution No. 06-
Draft Jobs Housing Nexus Update
D~1-
.~
~
CITY Of
CUPEIQ1NO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Hem No. _
Agenda Date: February 27, 2006
Applicant:
Property Location:
Mike Rohde (Valko Shopping Center)
10123 N. Wolfe Road
APNs: 316-20-057 & 316-20-064
Application Summary:
1. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1975: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning of a S.19-Acre Parcel From Planned
Development (Regional Shopping) to Plalmed Development (Regional
Shopping/Residential) at 10123 N. Wolfe Road."
2. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1976: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Modifying a Development Agreement (l-DA-
90) to Encompass the Development Proposed in U-200S-16, ASA-200S-11, Z,
2005-05, al1d TR-200S-04 for a 137 Unit, Two- and Tl1l"ee-Story Residential
Condominium Development at 10123 N. Wolfe Road."
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Enact the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1975 for Z-2005-0S; and
2. Continue the Second Reading of Ordinal1ce No. 1976 for DA-200S-01 to the
March 21, 2006 City Council meeting
BACKGROUND: .
On 'February 7, 2006, the City Council continued the second readings of Ordinance No.
1975 (re-zoning of the proposed 5.19 acre Valko condominium site) and Ordinance No.
1976 (modification to the Valko Development Agreement encompassing the proposed
project) due to the lateness of the meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Petition for Reconsideration
On February 13, 2006, the City received a petition for reconsideration (See Exhibit A) of
Ordinance No. 1975 for the re-zoning of the proposed Valko condominium project site.
The petition indicated concerns regarding the condition to keep the wall along the
»--0
Second Readings of Ordinance No. 1975 and 1976
Vallco Residential Condominiums
Page 2
western boundary of the property intact without openings, school impacts, and V allco' s
claim of the financial viability of the proposed project.
In response, the City Clerk sent a letter to the petitioner, Patty Chi, on February 13,
2006, stating that the petition is premature because the second reading of the ordinance
had not yet occurred (See Exhibit B).
Second Reading
Once the second reading is approved, then the negative declaration, use permit,
architectural and site application, and tree removal perrnit, as "adjudicatory" decisions,
can be petitioned for reconsideration, which must then be filed within 10 days after the
second reading of Ordinance No. 1975.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council enact the second reading of
Ordinance No. 1975 at this time for the re-zoning of this site, but continue the second
reading of the modification to the development agreement until the March 21, 2006 City
Council meeting until such time remedies can be made for the issues and concerns
raised in the petition for reconsideration.
Covenant
Currently, the City Attorney is working with Valleo's attorneys to review and edit the
proposed covenant regarding the wall along the western boundary of the site that is
adjacent to the existing single family residential neighborhood to the west.
ENCLOSURES:
Ordinance No. 1975 for Z-200S-05
Ordinance No. 1976 for DA-200S-01
Exhibit A: Petition for Reconsideration received on February 13, 2006
Exhibit B: City Clerk's Letter dated February 13, 2006
Prepared by: Aki Honda, Senior Plalll"ler
~---~
Su~ â f)
% /~{~~; /L /
St~V~ Piase~ki
Director, Community Development
Approved by:
~àL
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:\Phmning\PDREPORT\ CClZ-2005-05, DA-2005-01, Second Reading, Feb 27, 2006.doc
b-~
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
l'ÅX (4ðô) 777-:;:;:;:;
CITY OF
CUPERJINO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO._
AGENDA DATE: March 7,2006
Application Surnmary: Conduct a study session regarding industrial business in
Cupertino
Recornmendation:
Discuss the issue of conversion of industrial businesses to residential or other
non-commercial uses and provide direction for future action.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council scheduled this study session to consider retaining certain areas
in industrial use and eliminating the potential for residential uses. Recent
market forces have seen the conversion office/industrial to residential uses in the
area, including one approved project in Cupertino (Morley Brothers) and three
others being considered (Taylor Woodrow, Toll Brothers and a new proposal on
North Tantau Avenue.) As shown on the enclosed General Plan land use map, all
of the office, commercial and industrial land use designations allow residential
use. (However, Policy 2-35 states that residential uses are not allowed at the
Hewlett Packard campus in the North Valley area.) A General Plan amendment
would be required if residential uses were eliminated from any of these areas.
DISCUSSION:
The new General Plan includes a policy on maintaining cohesive commercial
centers and office parks (enclosed). Certain criteria will be used in considering
future conversions. The key land use criteria are:
>- Integrating into the existing land use pattern
>- Show that the building is functionally obsolete.. . and is no longer
complementary to existing buildings and uses
>- Show that the development can reasonably stand alone as a self-sufficient
land use that is otherwise complementary to existing buildings and uses
In summary, the property needs to blend with the surrounding area and not be a
residential island.
1:>-10
Printed on Recycled Paper
-2-
There are three office industrial areas that should be considered for a residential
restriction including Valko Park, North De Anza Boulevard and Bubb Road as
outlined on the attached exhibit. The criteria should consider which sites are
part of a cohesive office/ industrial park. Additionally, staff has provided a map
of the top 100 sales tax generators for your information.
The Council could initiate a general plan amendment to modify the land use
element to remove the residential option with some specific guidelines that
would preserve the central cohesive core of these areas for industrial. For
instance the Apple campus and all of the office/industrial on the east and west
side of De Anza Boulevard could be designated for office/ commercial and
industrial uses only. Similarly, in north Valko the HI' campus and remaining
office/ industrial sites east of Wolfe Road and west of Tantau Avenue could be
limited to office and industrial uses. The same issue could be applied to south
Valko on the Toll Bros. property if the Council concludes it should be retained
for office/industrial uses. Also. Bubb Road could preserve the office and
industrial uses on either side of Bubb Road. Staff would then schedule the
public hearings and notify the affected property owners of the possible change to
the plan.
Enclosures:
General Plan Land Use Map
General Plan Policy - Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office
Parks
Top 100 Sales Tax Generators
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Submitted by:
/7
I,/,
¡ /..
//(
../
/'
e;;.._-"-
Steve Pia cki
Director of Community Development
G:planningfpdreportfccfindustrial business study session
I)-I'
.
CITY OF
,--UPEIQ1NO
City of Cupertino
10300 T orre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Housing Services
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.
Application
Applicant:
Agenda Date: March 7, 2006
MCA-200S-01
City of Cupertino
Application Summary: Amend Chapter 16.28 (Fences) of the Cupertino Municipal
Code
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve amendments to Chapter 16.28, Fences,
based on the Model Ordinance attached as Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND:
In April of 2005, the Planning Commission and City Council agreed to include review
of the Fence Ordinance as part of the 2005-2006 Work Program. The Work Program
identified goals to review the entire fence ordinance and to specifically review
electronic fence regulations and fence post caps.
Electronic fence regulations were evaluated so that the distinction between electronic
and manual gates could be addressed as well as the definition of demonstrated security.
Fence post caps were included as a Work Program item for discussion on size and
heights of post caps. Post caps may be quite large, and currently they are excluded from
the measurement of fence heights, and no parameters exist for their size and height of
post caps.
As a result, the PI arming Commission held study sessions in August, October,
December and February to review the entire ordinance. Four specific subjects were
discussed that include fence height, electronic gates, fence materials and fence post
caps.
With respect to fence height, a majority of the Commissioners recommended
maintaining the existing process that would allow residential fence heights over 6 feet
and up to 8 feet with approval of a fence exception by the Design Review Committee.
On electronic gates, a majority of Commissioners recommended allowing driveway
gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual, subject to approval of a fence
exception. Additionally, the majority of the Commission recOllliTIended that language
be added to ensure that any electronic gates approved by an exception also meet Fire
DeparhTIent requirements. A majority of the Commission also recommended that the
b-I~
MCA-1005-0!
Fence Ordinance, Ch. !6.18
March 7, 2006
Page 2
existing language in the ordinance be maintained that excludes post caps from fence
height requirements. The Commission was able to reach consensus on fence materials,
recommending that a new section prohibiting barbed wire and the like be added.
At the December study session, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to
prepare a draft fence ordinance for review based upon the comments that were
provided by the Commission. As a result, a draft fence ordinance was prepared,
incorporating these recommendations where a majority or consensus was reached.
On February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft fence ordinance and
recommended approval on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Wong voted No).
DISCUSSION:
The attached Model Ordinance includes the Commission's recommendations from the
December and February study sessions. Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is
struck through.
The attached Model Ordinance outlines the additional amendments as recommended by
the Planning Commission on February 28, 2006. The following changes have been
incorporated into the Draft Ordinance:
1. Section 16.28.010 (Purpose) has been modified to include language clarifying that
the fence ordinance pertains to fences in all zoning districts.
2. Section 16.28.040C has been modified to include" adjacent" property owners.
3. A finding has been added as Section 16.28.060(B)(7) that requires the Design
Review Committee to make the finding a higher residential fence height is needed
to ensure adequate screening and/ or privacy.
4. Section 16.28.060(A) has been modified to state that no fees shall be charged for a
fence exception application where an applicant/property owner of a residential
property is requesting a fence higher than permitted by Section 16.28.040C.
SUBMITTElJ'~0:tt¡PP
.1 i
\.///. i
., \..
".....'. ,
" .....-. ;
--' Steve asecki
Director of Community Development
·f
Attachments
Exhibit A: Model Ordinance
Exhibit B: PI aIming Commission Staff Report of February 28, 2006 with attachments
b-13
·Ir
CITY OF
CUPEI\.TINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: March 7, 2006
SUBJECT:
Request from the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) to amend the eligibility
requirements for the Below Market Rate (BMR) program to give CUSD teachers a point
for working within the City of Cupertino limits, regardless of the city they are working
in, as long as they are employed by CUSD.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Cupertino Housing Commission recommends that rather than amend the point
system for the BMR program, that programmatic changes be instated by CCS to make it
clear to applicants that they must continue to qualify for the BMR unit through the close
of escrow. In addition, CCS shall encourage public service employees to inform their
human resources' office that they have applied for a BMR unit and must remain
working within the City limitsyntil they close escrow.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
CUSD presented the attached Resolution 1865 from the CUSD Board of Education
requesting the City amend the BMR mitigation manual to allow all CUSD teachers to
qualify for the point awarded to applicants working within the city limits regardless of
the city limits. Andy Mortensen met with the Housing Commission on February 9, 2006
to discuss the request. Mr. Mortensen explained to the Commission that there was an
incident last year where a teacher applied for the BMR program, was reassigned to a
school in another city and then realized after the fact that they needed to remain at a
Cupertino school to qualify for the point awarded to applicants working within the city
limits. The teacher then had to request that CUSD transfer them back to a Cupertino
school, disrupting the classroom mid-year and causing concern among the parents. For
this reason, CUSD is requesting that all CUSD teachers qualify for the Cupertino
worker point even if they are employed in the neighboring cities of Sunnyvale, Santa
Clara, Los Altos, Saratoga or San Jose.
The program the school district is requesting be amended is not a teacher housing
program, but the Below Market Rate program that was established by a 1992 study
linking new office/ industrial development to the need for affordable housing. One of
C: \ Documents and Settings\ verag\ Desktop \ CUSD report.doc
\)-14--
Page 2
the establishing principles of the program is to provide housing to Cupertino workers
that are not able to afford to live in Cupertino. Currently, Cupertino workers receive
two points in the point system established to qualify applicants with public service
employees and Cupertino residents receiving one point each. Removing, or
eliminating, the points for Cupertino workers could jeopardize the program funding,
fees paid by Cupertino office/industrial companies receiving building permits for
additional or new square footage.
Prepared by Vera Gil, Senior Plalmer
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments:
Cupertino Union School District Resolution l865
Cupertino Housing Mitigation Manual
Minutes rrom the February 9, 2006 Housing Commission Meeting
b·-If?
C:\Documents and Settings\verag\Desktop\CUSD report.doc
-~
.~
CITY Of
CUPEIQ1NO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA.95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Summary
Agenda Item No. _.
Agenda Date: March 7, 2006
SUBJECT:
Conduct the first of two public hearings to consider the City of Cupertino Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program draft Consolidated Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council begin review of the City of Cupertino Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Consolidated Plans. Final approval of the
plan will occur at the March 21, 2006 City Council Meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The Consolidated Plan is the federal. equivalent of the Housing Element detailing
Cupertino's housing needs and how these needs are addressed. The City's consultant,
D.R. Elrod and Associates, recently completed the draft Consolidated Plan which is
attached for review.
In 2003, the City of Cupertino participated in a pilot program allowing select cities to
reference the Housing Element and other published documents rather than recreate
work. This process significantly streamlined the size of the document. In addition to
referencing the recently approved Housing Element, the updated Consolidated Plan
also incorporates 2000 Census data that was not compiled in 2003 and results of a
countywide phone survey on community development needs.
Prepared by Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachrnents:
Draft Consolidated Plan
H: \ -CDBG\ ConPlan \ CC Con plan report.doc
b-llo
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO._
AGENDA DATE March 7, 2006
SUMMARY:
Approve Planning Commission work program for 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of:
1. The 2006 Work Program
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission adopts a work program each year, which is
forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The proposed Work Program is
enclosed. It is based, for the most part, on adopted City Council goals.
Additional projects are those initiated by the staff, Planning Commission and
private developers.
DISCUSSION:
The main projects are summarized below:·
City Council Goals
· Crossroad Streetscape Plan
· Sign Ordinance
· Fence Ordinance
· Nexus Study
· Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing
· Heart of the City Specific Plan
· Green Buildings Program
· Annex small unincorporated pockets
Plannin~ Projects
· Review R1 ordinance regarding RHS slope standards
· Proactive planning for Homestead and North Valko areas; also South Valko
area if the Toll Brothers project is not approved
b·-IT-
Printed on Recycled Paper
2
· Identify obsolete Research and Development properties city-wide and
determine appropriate long-term use
· Lower Priority Projects:
o Apartment conversion
o Tree ordinance amendments
o Senior housing incentives
o Public transportation/light rail
Private Projects
. Building Permits/Construction
o Vallco
o Oak Park Village
o Marketplace
o Civic Parks
o Morley Brothers
o Stevens Canyon Road (Rockwell Homes)
· Public Hearings
o Taylor Woodrow
o McDonald/Dorsa Quarry Site
o Former Any Mountain Site
o North Tantau Avenue industrial to residential conversion
There was strong support from the Planning Commission for proactive planning,
such as pre-planning areas anticipated for change, and for having information on
obsolete office/ industrial buildings before applicants apply for conversion.
A member of the public felt that a definition of functionally obsolete buildings is
needed.
Exhibits:
Planning Commission Work Program 2006 (includes review of 2005 Work
Program)
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
c-:) ~~. æl¿µ:,(j~/C~
Steve Piasecki .
Djrector of Community Development
G:pJanningl eel ee2006work program
David W. Knapp
City Manager
\)--l 'Ú
i!);~~~1
J.>í' \"'J~_
, I .. "
\... / """[
~:':-f
-,.,.....""'.,.......,...:-
iL~
CITY OF
CUPERTJNO
.~
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 9S0l4
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGJENJI:ÞA NO.
AGJENJ!JJA ]J)A'fJE March 7. 2006
SUBJECT:
Consider an appeal of Application No. U-200S-14, T-Mobile, located at 20041 Bollinger
Road, APN 369-34-052, regarding the Planning Commission's denial to erect a 3S-foot
tall, treepole with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter for wireless telephone
service at an existing shopping Center (Pacific Rim Center). The appellant is William
Stephens for T-Mobile (Exhibit A-2).
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council may take either of the following actions:
1. Uphold the appeal of U-200S-14 and approve (or modify) the applicant's request;
Or
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision
BACKGROUND:
Prior to the first Commission hearing, staff and the applicant considered several design
iterations for the monopole. The last design was submitted to the Planning
Commission on October 25,2005 and consisted of a slim-line monopole that was
camouflaged to appear like an Italian Cypress and blended with several natural
cypresses to be planted behind the treepole. Staff believed this landscape screen was
not substantial enough and recommended that the project be continued to give the
applicant sufficient time to redesign his proposaL The Commission concurred and
continued the project hearing.
The applicant offered a slight redesign to increase the landscape screening area to 180
square feet. Staff recommended denial of the project because the applicant did not
pursue a fuller landscape screen, which would have necessitated a reorganization of a
portion of the storage and loading area used by Tin Tin Market. The Planning
Commission concurred and denied the application on a 5-0 vote on December 13tl1
(Exhibits B-2, C-2, D-2).
])-19
U-2005-l4 Appeal
Page 2
March 7, 2006
--------------------------------------- ---
DISCUSSION:
Exhibit E-2 illustrates the design expectations for this project, which were transmitted
to the appellant. The exhibit consists of the applicant's needed lease area for a cell site
plus four large trees, 84" to 96" boxed Coastal Redwoods or Canary Island Pines
clustered around an unadorned slim-line pole. The planting height of the trees is 25
feet, which can grow rapidly over several years to eventually screen a 3S-foot tall
monopole.
Exhibit E-2 takes into account the physical obstructions presented by the building and
the need to maintain truck clearance toward the rear of the building for Tin Tin Market.
A portion of Tin Tin's storage and trash area would have to be relocated southerly to
make this landscape screening viable. Some parking stalls would have to be removed,
but the shopping center has sufficient parking resources to accommodate the parking
reduction.
The enhanced landscape screen directly addresses the adopted siting and design
guidelines of the City's Wireless Master Plan (pages 25 and 26), which states:
"A monopole should be sited among other tall vertical structures or
elements to reduce its obtrusiveness, such as, among a cluster of
buildings, grove of trees, or within a power substation."
"Intrusive and obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as
artificial trees. Since such artificial trees appear more authentic
when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger trees near
the monopole may be a project requirement. "
"The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the
surrounding trees to which it is being visually integrated, and
be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearance for
the life of the personal wireless service facility. "
"The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the
surrounding vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc.) "
The applicant felt the proposed landscape screen was unreasonable given the shopping
center activities already present in the area (Exhibit F-2).
The City received an extensive amount of public testimony on the project at both
Plamung Commission hearings. Many were concerned with the height of the monopole
relative to the height of the low-profile buildings, and the obstruction of views of the
foothills caused by the monopole and landscape screen. The neighborhood opinions
are reflected in the staff report and public hearing minutes (Exhibits C-2 and D-2).
t-80
U-2005-14 Appeal
Page 3
March 7, 2006
Enclosures:
Exhibit A-2: T-Mobile appeal information
Exhibit B-2: Planning Commission Resolution of Denial No. 6343
Exhibit C-2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 13, 2005
Exhibit D-2: Planning Commission hearing minutes from October 25 and December 13,
2005.
Exhibit E-2: Staff-proposed site plan for T -Mobile personal wireless service facility
Exhibit F-2: Letter from William Stephens to Colin Jung dated January 30, 2006.
Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
'-i /) Ie
.-"". - /,/ .' "
-' 'I .'. i. - -- ,
oJ1.,-'i..:"'l(.c~q:ec;/1--. Cu/
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:planrlingj pdreportj appealsjU-2005-14
í)-~ \
<~\I
.,.,,\ "',
..; L.
l L.~¿:,""
;r.".... ····1
CITY OF
r~ lJ D 1: R'T] '\..1 C)
,-,LIJ:\;II.
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
_~___'____'_._""M·_'__.'_.'_'__'__""_____
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO.
AGENDA DATE March 7.2006
SUBJECT:
Consider an appeal of Application No. TR-2006-01, regarding the Community
Development Director's Denial of a Request to remove two Canary Island Pines (16"
and 19" in diameter) from the common landscape area of the Cupertino Commons, a
planned residential development surrounded by the Sports Center, Stelling Road, Alves
Drive and Anton Way. The appellants are Nancy Hurtienne and Milton & Dorothy
Levitan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council may take either of the following actions:
1. Uphold the appeal of TR-2006-01 and approve (or modify) the applicants' tree
removal request;
Or
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision
to not remove the trees.
BACKGROUND:
On January 20, 2006, the Director of Community Development approved with
modifications the Cupertino Coinmons HONs request to remove certain common area
trees that were either diseased, in poor health or posed a genuine hazard under his
authority granted under CMC Section 14.18.170 (Exhibit A-1).
The trees were examined by Cupertino Commons' arborist Gil Mitchell of Tree Health
Professionals, Inc. and his report was reviewed by City Arborist Barrie Coate of Barrie
Coate & Associates. Both arborists agreed that six trees should be removed, but their
opinions differ on the two Canary Island Pines that are the subject of this appeal (tree
nos. 140 and 176). The pines are in good health and have good structures, but the
Cupertino Commons' arborist recommends removal because of the hazard caused by
squirrel-induced pine cone drops, which could injure people. Some of the branches of
these trees extend over private yards and walkways. The City Arborist does not
recommend removal. He notes that most pines drop cones and the extension of
branches over the roofs and yards of the residences contributes to the wooded character
b-~Ä
TR-2006-0l Appeal
Page 2
March 7,2006
---------------------------------
and charm of this development. He recommends drop crotch pruning of the longest
limbs to improve the structure of the pines.
The Director of Community Development agreed with the City Arborist and did not
find the dropping cone hazard to bean adequate justification to remove these otherwise
healthy trees and denied the removal of them.
The Director's decision was appealed by the property owners residing closest to the
pines: Dorothy & Milton Levitan (tree no. 140) and Nancy Hurtienne (tree no. 176).
The appellant information is attached (Exhibit B-1). A h'ee location map is also attached
(Exhibit C-l).
DISCUSSION:
The Levitan's justification for removing tree no. 140 is fire hazard. The tree drops dry
needles on the townhouse roof and the surrounding grounds. They pose a fire hazard
because of potential sparks from neighboring patio and Quinlan Center (Memorial
Park) barbeques and cigarette butts tossed from the sidewalk onto the landscaped areas.
Staff spoke to Santa Clara County Fire Department staff about these concerns.
Cupertino's local liaison, said he very rarely recommends the removal of a tree for fire
safety reasons for properties, such as this one, that is outside of the city's fire hazard
zone. The Fire Department prefers educating residents on other preventive measures,
such as property maintenance to reduce the levels of combustible materials and
identifying and avoiding possible sources of ignition.
The City's Fire liaison said a barbeque would be an unlikely source of ignition, unless it
occurred under a tree. Flying embers are caused mainly by the combustion of wood,
not coal or gas, which are the main fuel source for barbeques. Ignition from a Memorial
Park source is higlùy unlikely as all of the barbeque stations are located in open "areas
away from trees and City ordinances prohibit open pit fires in the park. Cupertino
Commons contracts with a gardening service to maintain their common areas. Staff
assumes this service includes the regular removal of accumulations of pine needles.
Ms. Hurtienne's concerns are with falling cones that drop from tree no. 176. The cones
are heavy and drop like small sharp missiles. She says she has nearly been hit several
times on her balcony or in the yard. She indicates that there is plenty of mature trees
nearby, so the pine's removal would not be significant.
The canopy of tree no. 176 extends over the roof and entrance/walkway of the
Hurtienne residence, and the perimeter landscape area that wraps around the
development. Other than the walkway to the residence, there are no public walkways
under this tree canopy.
þ-d3
TR-2006-0l Appeal
Page 3
March 7, 2006
-----~---------~-------~
Staff would like to point out that there are dozens of Canary Island Pines located in this
development, most with canopies that extend over private yards, walkways and surface
parking areas. If a tree removal were approved because of dropping cones, it would be
difficult not to grant other tree removal requests for similar reasons in this development
and others throughout Cupertino.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A-I: Director's Minor Modification (Tree Removal) staff report with arborist
reports
Exhibit -B-1: Appellant infonnation
Exhibit C-l: Tree Location Map
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
.-;Cev_¿ äi/:'.2C,
'/c
., ",,' .'.-
)¿_"-- C·l.-V
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:planningl pdreportl appeaIs/TR- 2006-01
þ-81
aUow{or a small allotment of commercial
space-at double the current rent-as
well as housing, but even this seems
doubtful.)
The whole process is now in the
hands of the city of San Jose; the
Planning Commission votes whether to
recommend the amendment on March
8, and the City Council votes on wbether
to implement it on April 18. After that,
Sullivan will submit blueprints through
the same channels, with construction
expected to begin in 2007.
The whole situation raises the question:
why this site? According to escrow
officers at both North American Title and
Chicago Title the housing market in the
Cupertino area spent the last 10 years
growing (regardless of the reœssion) due
to the renown oflocal schools. And, as it
happens, this particwar complex occupies
one of the only parts ofSan}ose to fall
within the district boundaries of Monta
VISta, one of the best·known sChools in
the entire country.
In fact. the desire to get into Manta
VISta is one of the main factors driving
the price of homes in Cupertino as high
as they are. It's the reason Sullivan can
reasonably expect each of his 8o-odd
townhouses to sell for nearly $1 million
apiece.
According to San Jose Councilwoman
Linda leZotte's office, Braddock &
Logan was in the process ofinformiog
the school district about the impact it'
planned to make on Monta VISta. But,
with only a month to go before the
scheduled San Jose Planning Commission
voteto recommend the general plan
change that would get the whole thing
moving, Fremont Union High School
District Assistant Superintendent Jeff
Kielb had yet to hear about it.
Actually, no one from either the school
district or the Cupertino city govern=nent
seems to have heard anything about the
project, let alone have an opportunity
to voice any concerns. But, as Cupertino
Planning Conunission chairman Miller
pointed out, regardless of what Cupertino
residents or the city government think
about the development, no one feels they
can do much about it.
"The first step,~ he says, "is to figure out
the first step."
The city has no authority over that land
and local residents are not represented by
the governmem that does. Councilwoman
leZotte's office insists it won't let a lack of
representation get in the way of keeping
Braddock & Logan responsible to the
community. "Just because they live in
Cupertino and are not my constituents,"
LeZotte told MEtro, "doesn't mean I'm n01
going to listen to their concerns."
But with all but a handful of residents
and nearly all public officials in
Cupertino kept in the dark until the last
minute, they may find any opposition
they can raise to be too little, tOO late.<iV'
available, had resigned himself to the
situation.
"I paid 24 years of sales tax to tbe
government, but now I can't get heip,"
he said, frustrated. "They [Braddock &
Logan) have a big company. We cannot
win, Ot even fight-" At tbe same time he
says he feels a duty to keep his restauranl
operating somewhere in the area. "I still
have 25 to 30 people working for me,
some of them for more than IO years. I
have w move, to think of them. I have
tottyi'
And Fujioka is one of the lucky ones in
all this. 'IWo doors down from Kikusushi,
Giang Luu, the owner of Louis' Wine &
Liquors, was much less optimistic. "That's
the problem," he said. "The city of San
Jose makes the decision and they don't
care." Luu bought his store from the
previous owner five years ago and says the
cost of rdocating wowd be tOO much for
him.
Unlike Fujioka's more stoic frustration,
Luu just sounded angry and couldn't
understand how both the San Jose
government and Braddock & Logan tould
think it was right to displace so many
people. "You make your money or not, 1
don't care," he said, lampooning Sullivan's
presentation at the community meeting.
"It's not my problem." And then he pulled
out his calcwator and started crunching
numbers to show how much money he
e:xpected the developers to make from
putting him out of work.
·And discontent about this project
goes well beyond the people whose
livelihoods it threatens. Even Wlaffected
local businessmen, like Tommy Gauge
who owns the Britannia Arms Cupei"tino
(also in San Jose, barely a "half mile from
the project site), are angry at the idea that
this sort of thing could happen at all. "It's
been here for 25 years," he said, talking
about his bar, "so you think it's gonna be
here for another 25."
A5 he saw it, when people invest in a
new business they expect to keep it as
their way of life. Something they can
build that has value, so, even if dieir
children don't want to take over, they can
sell out and retire. But, as Tommy put it,
"they aren't given the option to cash out.
. . . I think there should have been a little
integrity, a little loyalty [from the old
owners]."
The first chance anybody had to air
their grievances was on Dee. 19, at a
rather poorly publicized public meeting
that consisted of a few dozen Cupertino
residents and the effected business
owners, and was run by Jim Sullivan and
Sue Dillon, who manage Braddock &
Logan's South Bay developments.
Braddock & Logan had applied w
amend the San JOse General Plan, to
change the site's designated usage from
"general commercial" to "medium high
density residential." (There had been
some talk of altering the amendment to
<-15
KU IRVVð
IVlt
EWS
FEBRUARY 22-28, 2006
~I Cupertino as local staples.· [n San
:. Jose, however, the entire complex.
!' is considered little more than a set
- of unproductive properties on the
outskirts of the city, not living up
to their potential
And in the Silicon Valley
potentia] is everything, which is
why Danville~based development
company Braddock & Logan
recently bought the 4;17 acre
property and plan to tear it down,
replacing local business with
townhouses.
The plan took tl).!= locals
who ã-Ctually heard about it by
complete surprise, especially
the complex's small business
owners, who found out about the
property's change in ownership
in September (after the deal
went through) only to discover in
December thàt the new owner's
plans for the rnalt ineluded its
demolition.
Cupertino residents af!d
business owm:ts don't seem to
think the destruction of local
businesses will do much to help
the community, but not even the
owners themselves had a voice
in the matter. The entire process
feU under the jurisdiction of a
government that had the ability
to influence Cupertino without
taking an}' responsibility for its
people or local investments.
The officia1 name for this
predicament is "externality of
governance» and, according to
Cupertino Planning Commission
chainnan Marty Miller, this sort
of thing happens all the time. But
however common this situation
may be, it doesn't stop the people
on the verge of losing their
livelihoods from feeling railroaded
by the whole ordeal.
"I can't sell now,n Masa Fujioka
told me as he sat in the backroom
of his restaurant before the day's
lunchtime rush. Fujioka, who
owns Kikusushi, says-he has paid
nearly 1 million dollars in rent
since first opening his doors. ~No
one win buy, they'll lose money.»
Like most people in the complex,
Fujioka, with no recourse
. -H6
N
IRO
.NIA
f
REMOTE CONTROL Mnða Fujioka, ownero, k1kU<lUðh~ 6a,yð the development planned 'or hLl mtauronf'6 6pa«
hnð given him'~ opfion6. '16tm haw 25 to 30 penp!e worldng 'orme. 60me 0' them ,ormore than .o,yearð.
I have to move. to think o~ them. I have to tr:y.'
Issues
Control
CupertÍno business owners and residents are steamed
at development being orchestrated by San Jose, outside
of local jurisdiction By SERCAN ERSOY
"the corner of De Ann Boulevard
and Kentwood Avenue" rarely
get more than a confused look in
response. But if you mention the
Kikusushi Japam;se restaurant,
people suddenly break into cries
of"Oh yeah, next to the liquor
store~ or "in the complex with the
swim club."
This strip mall, after ~ll, has
been around sinCe the 1960s.
Businesses like Kikusushi:-which
opened in I982-are so well
known that they are seen in
away-one in which they have no
representation or political sway.
Some of these residents got a
rude awakening when they heard
about a developme':lt plan slated
to destroy a complex packed with
local businesses. They quickly
discovered that not all local
infrastructure falls under local
control.
Most people don't know this
complex by name-it's caned
simply the De Anza 85 Shopping
Center-and descriptions like
THE BORDER between
Cupenino and San Jose
zigzags back and foutth
along the length of De Anza
Boulevard so erratically that even
people: who have lived here for
20 or 30 years are rarely sure
which city controls what. For
simplicity's sake, most residents·
look at everything squished
between Sunnyvale and Saratoga
as part of their city, unaware that
their street might be the domain
of a different city hall 20 miles
~
1979 Ve.r the current
C..pe~nobo..nd.rllUwe...craated
85 Mnlmum number of units
pbmn""orttJe.pacebydeVCIlo,..,.
34,000 Sq..re feet 0
commercllllproperty
4..17 Acres on the Cupertino site
DAILY NEWS
Cupertino, Saratoga and Monte Sereno
o 20061\r11ght Ridder Canmurlity New!lPØPIß, Inc. All
COMBINED DAILY NEWS CIRCUlATION: 67,808
GATOS
. ((,~L
~~ I
righls<eserwd. AnecMlonofUwJPaIoMo DailyNew8
Volume 4, Number 236
Happily serving Campbel
February 15, 2006
COMMISSIONER
(408) 2(j4.1101
OOW: 11,028.39 +136.07
.
NASDAQ: 2,262.17 +22.36
FROM PAGE 1
shelter and cash to low-income residents in 26 years. He moved from Taipei, Taiwan, "It is at that point I made a decision to
five West Valley cities. to the United States when he was in the switch my line of work," Chien said. "Pol-
Chien said that one of his primary goals second grade and is fluent in Mandarin. itics and law has always fascinated me.
while serving on the conunission would be "English was not my first language. I Much like business, there are many good
to increase communicatiou between the had to take ESL (English as a second lan- ideas in our society. The question I asked
commissioners and the council members. guage). myself was, 'Which ideas get to the top of
"All conunissions serve at the pleasure ''In fifth grade, we moved to Cupertino people's attention?'''
of the.City Council and you have to under- where I attended Lincoln Elementary, then When asked by the Daily News if he
stand their goals before you can help them Kennedy Junior High, and later Monta had future plans to 11m for City Council
accomplish them," said Chen. 'This is VIsta High School," said Chien. Chien said he didn't think so, but joked
what I've lried to do in my tenn on the He is a graduate of Santa Oara Univer- that he still had time.
Parks and Recreation Commission the last sity and holds a bachelor's degree in com- "I'm only 26 so ... no, I don't see
two years." puter science. Eventually he would like to myself running. Of course I've thought
In 2003, Chien successfully managed attend law school. Çhien worked in the about it I've thought about a lot of things,"
Council Member Kris Wang's election high-tech industry for three years, where Chien said. '1f one is going to run they
campaign and is cUlrently a community he learned that being analytical and have to be ready to make ttemendous per-
aide to Leland Yee, Speaker Pro Tem of med10dical equals quality work, coupled sonal sacrifices. The constituents expect it
the California state Assembly. with tl,e ability to connect with the public from their leaders. I've seen this fust-
Chien has achieved a great deal in his through effective sales and marketing. hand."
I
,
i
.
City appoints
26-year-old to
BY MICIIEWi_
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
CUpel1inO filled its vacancy on the Planning Conunission
this week by appointing one of the youngest commissioners in
the city's history, officials said.
Cary Chien, 26, was chosen by the City
Council to fill the seat of fonner Commis-
sioner Angela Chen, who resigned in
December.
"I am deeply honored to serve on the
Planning Commission and I am grateful
for the confidence that the council has
shown in me," Chien said. .
Chien was chosen out of five appli-
cants. He cUlrently serves as the chair of CHIEN
the Parks and Recreation Commission and
sits on dIe board of directors for the Cupertino Conununity
Services, an agency that provides affordable housing, food,
- - -
- - - --
.
StOn
.
\J
\
~
~
lNBOX ... EVERY Vlftt:IŒ
..
NoSDAY
."."....
"'"
'~,y~,~-[ V dlley
Checkingloure-mai1?Whynotd
news too. Sign up for our e-mail n
MERCURYNEWS.COM
;tate
Jews
JURORS HEAR FBI TAPES
FBI ¡ntomant pressuredLodi man to 'attend AI-Qaida
training camp, phone transcripts reveal.,PAGE 5ß I
\.
.'
I
I
GOVERNORS WANT GUEST WORI<ER PLAN
Ärizona'Gov:'Jan'èt Napolitano. left, led Western governor
:In demanding better Immigration policies. PAGE 58
"It's veryllpset!:ing to some of ús tl¢ basicprecaulions weren't taken by
Va]lcolike,talWtgdown the crane in vvea+4e~!ilœ,this. It's common sense."
. ~, ; "" -.d"i. '"
SfOMfly-wéãther
leMting its mark
'-. ..,-.,
'" lÈII,~-MERCURYIIEWs~'
The twisted metal of a crane's tower lies Tuesday across the skéleton of whaÜ",,1II be a 16-screen cineplex at Vallc~ FashIon i
Park in Cupertino after being toppled by Mondaýs .strong storm. No one.y.ras Ihjured, butshops suffered damage.
y,
..~ Forecastersare
ð ð: calliog for periods
~ 64 ð ofheaVyrainand
gusty winds
tonight.btttonlyalightpattemof
showers for the rest of the week.
Accident has merchants
and neighbors worried
Wrnds to ease,
showers on tap,
says fu~
"'"," .
ByJu6ePaiel
M=ur¡¡Hr:wt.
No one was injured when 8400-
foot-long crane feU into a Cupertino
mall Monday; but business is already
hurting as investigators try to get to
the bottom ofwhat:went wrong.
Customers and 'einployees "were
,tanding . up ouuI ...ong tho tbing
coming r~.t through the center"oì
the ceiling.' said Sandy Phillips, own~.
er of New Things VIestlBay Area'
Bridal, who viewed' the ~ from
behind police tape Monday I1Igbt af-
ter 8 strong winter storm k:noclœd .
the crane over at the mall at Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road in
Cupertino. "It looks like 9/lL"
the u.s. Occupational Sllfely and
Health Administration and an engi-,
neering firm hired by DPR Construc-
tion _ the contractor hired to lead
the $200 million mall I'erlIOvatÍon pr0-
ject - are trying to determine.hqw a
gust of wind could topple a 300-too
CUPERTINO
By""-'
Mø:i;uTyNrun
Doo't put aW,!I3',J<l11r wnbreUa
_or·giveuponsprlng. ,:
After all the blUJ>i;et iIáhe Eiay
Area on Monday IÛght, with winds
up to 71 mph, Silic.oo Valley resi-
dents can expect a milder "show-
ery pattern" for the next week, ac-
cording to the National Weather
Service.
''We will see the sun inake an
appearance like we saw" Tuesday,
swd Steve Anderson, lead fore-
caster with the Monterey Forecast
Center: "But we'll be in a cool,
~~_~~ pattern for the next
þ-Jt
·
lENVAJ..lGlfi.L.Alt_IoIEIICURVNEWS
Workers examine the mess left by Monday's crane accident More than 15 pettent of the mati's stores remained closed Tuesday.
CRANE I Accident takes a toll
on mall, merchants, neighbors
ContinuedfromPoge IB
crane; why the crane was sit-
ting vertically with the boom
up; and whether there were
any safety policies violated.
Meanwhile, some shop
owners and homeowners
nearby who are fed up with
the cODstruclion are collect..
ing more arsenal for their
push against the project. .
As of Tuesday afternoon,
more than 16 percent of the
mall'sstorea were still closed
because of safety concerns,
said 'Ibm WaJah; a Santa Cla-
ra COlU1ty senior deputy fire
marshal The hook and baD of
the crane plUDged through
the mall's roof and past ells-.
tamers at New Things West,
s cloUrlng-bouUqu~ R ~
embedded between the lloor
of the shop and the ~ of
the_ parking lot W1derneath,
Wa1ah SJÜd, breaking the
sprinkler system and regular
water pipes between ßoors. A
chunk of the crane's arm
splintered off and into the
store.
Down the hall from where
the crane landed, a dam~d
pipe leaked gallons of dirty
water into Bang Bang shoe
store, ddpping into two large
trash cans and a puddle on
thecarpe~
Businesses suffering
"Weare loaing a lot ofcus-
tomers that we can't afford to
lose," said Fatfai Chan, Bang
Ban,g's owner. He said his
fanu1y pays about $3,600 a
month in rent and didn't
manage to break even in Jan-
umyandFebrnæyp~b~
cause of a drop in busmess
since construction on the
rnall began last fall They've
taken out a second Joan on
thejr house in the meantime,
he said. ''We are very worried
and nef¡!CI help from manage-
ment."
Although investigators ha-
ven't estimated the extent or
cost of damage, Chan said
hundreds of dollars worth of
merchandise has been ru-
in....
Even shops that were open
Tuesday weren't doing too
""n.
"Being a small business,
day-to-day:saJes really affect
liS," said Helen Lebreton, the'
manager of Legends CODÚCS
and Games shop. Legends
was one of a handful of shops
open for business Tuesday
morning but there were only
two customers - and four
employees. "You can tell it's
s.low."
Mall managers did not re-
turn calls Tuesday.
Homeowners near the mall
are irked, too. They say
they've been dealing with
construction at all hõurs of
the night and the crane acci-
dent makes them feel unsafe.
"It's very upsetting to
some OfUB that basic precau-
tions weren't taken by VaIlco
like taking down the crane in
weather like this. It's com-
mon sense," said Nelson
D'Souza., who lives a few
blocks from the end of the
mall neW" Macy's,
D'Souza and other neigh-
borhood residents have com-
plained about what they call
the "roshed" pace of the pro-
ject. They have urged Cuper-
tino'scitycounciltominimize
the construction's impact.
When complete, the reno-
vation win include additiOi1al
retail space, a 16-scl'een AMC
cineplex, an Ice rink, an up-
scale bowling venue, a slate of
fine restaurants, and multl-
million-dollar condominiums
and townhouse!!,
DPR, which had 27 OSHA
violations last year, had none
in California; accordiIur to
OSHA's Web site. There have
only been four OSHA investi-
gations resulting from com-
plaints agairult DPR in Cali-
fornia in the past five years.
Fear, no injuries
"The No.1 thing is that no
one got injured. It scared
some folks and made a lot of
noise but everyone was fine,"
said Rod Spencley, DPR's
corporate safety director.
Custo:rnel.'S at New Things
West - some weW"mg only
wedding gowns - ran out-
side to safety. The store suf-
fered water damage. The
owner is still asse'!8ing the
condition of her merchan-
dise. "We're going into tJ¡e
height of prom and bridal
seasons, so the 108B of bus 1-
nes,g is going to be, I don't
know whet. ., huge," Phillips
said.
Mercury News Staff Writer
¥ami wrollgecolltributed to
this report. Contact Julie Patel
atjpatel@merclUynews.com
or(408)27]..'1679.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Psychiatric Replacement FacWty
"iM,.. p..ln Alto
I)-dO